What's with the self-limitations when administering justice?

[Norsefire]

This is basically about the people who will say things like "wait, you don't have the right to execute people" or "we don't have the right to decide if someone lives or dies"

We don't. And we do. The point is, we decide what rights we have. From a legal standpoint, why burden yourself? Of course we have the right to decide of someone lives or dies, because we give ourself that right.


Rights are not innate; they don't exist objectively. They are entirely what we make them. And the world is just a rough world like that.

As for the death penalty, of course we have the right to execute people! If we recognize the government as a legitimate organization, then everything else falls into place...we have the right to execute "criminals" because the government, which is supposedly us, says so.

There we go.

 

[lightgigantic]

Can we also add to the list people who say "you don't have the right to rape me", "you don't have the right to steal from me", etc etc, since these things are also equally outside the "objective"?

 

[Norsefire]

Can we also add to the list people who say "you don't have the right to rape me", "you don't have the right to steal from me", etc etc, since these things are also equally outside the "objective"?

Absolutely, because again those are subjective statements. They are rational, of course, and indeed I personally do believe that nobody has the "right" to rape another...but unfortunately that does little to stop the rapist. Therefore, in reality, it is might that makes right.

And when dealing with criminals, why limit ourselves? Let's not only execute them, but do so much more...because we have the right to.

 

[lightgigantic]

Absolutely, because again those are subjective statements. They are rational, of course, and indeed I personally do believe that nobody has the "right" to rape another...but unfortunately that does little to stop the rapist. Therefore, in reality, it is might that makes right.

And when dealing with criminals, why limit ourselves? Let's not only execute them, but do so much more...because we have the right to.

So let's get this straight.

Since there are no rights, we have the right to do anything to someone who transgresses our rights?

How do you propose to distinguish between criminal activity and law enforcement?

 

[Norsefire]

So let's get this straight.

Since there are no rights, we have the right to do anything to someone who transgresses our rights?

I said there are no objective rights. Rights and breaches of rights are complete perspective; in our society, we establish a standard for rights and enforce that. Therefore you have the right to do anything to he who transgresses on your right in so far as you and those around you recognize that right.

 

[lightgigantic]

I said there are no objective rights. Rights and breaches of rights are complete perspective; in our society, we establish a standard for rights and enforce that. Therefore you have the right to do anything to he who transgresses on your right in so far as you and those around you recognize that right.

Which leaves us with the problem of distinguishing criminal activities from law enforcement since both can lay claim to an identical work ethic.

:shrug:

 

[Norsefire]

And that is up to us, just like every other subjective aspect of society.

 

[lightgigantic]

And that is up to us, just like every other subjective aspect of society.

Soooo ...... since its up to us and we have this idea that social laws exist in their current state, what's your point?

 

[Norsefire]

That we could change them if we want to. So let's not have them burdening us. Let's change them so that they allow us to do what we want, which is execute criminals.

 

[lightgigantic]

That we could change them if we want to. So let's not have them burdening us. Let's change them so that they allow us to do what we want, which is execute criminals.

The fact that we can change them and that we aren't indicates that not everyone shares your opinion of them being burdensome.

 

[Norsefire]

No, they aren't being changed because people don't understand that they can change them. Hence, that's why I said about the people who say "we don't have the right" , they don't understand that they have the power.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, they aren't being changed because people don't understand that they can change them. Hence, that's why I said about the people who say "we don't have the right" , they don't understand that they have the power.

sheesh

just google "capital punishment controversy"

:shrug:

 

[baftan]

There is a perfect expression in English language probably created by Americans: "Do they still hang the horse thieves?" You see, there was a time in America, nearly up until 100 years ago, the horse was a precious commodity and life dependency for most of the population. For certain executions during the romantic Western Era were obvious, today it is totally out of modern American legal system. People use this expression to confuse someone humourously, or to emphasize unnecessarily ancient bags in law or in politics.

If American, or any other government who want to be in a better position in human civilisation, if they want to stay as legitimate organisations, they'd better stop killing people in the name of justice. If legitimate government "can execute" people, we can confidently say that this freedom mostly represents the opinion of critical mass of the population. Because if any government tries to bring back the actual 19th century horse thieves execution laws, they couldn't find a single soul who would support or legitimize their idea, -apart from some ultra traditionalists maybe.

Yes everyone knows that this blood does not belong to government. Government is just a machine to kill when ordered. Public wants this executions. Governments does not want to show you the scenes that you do not wish to know or see. It applies the monumental secular human justice as fresh and innovative as Babylons and Egypt were.

All I am saying, today's execution excuses will be as ancient as the hanging of the horse thieves. It is up to the pace of our human universe: moral and justice evolve too. And who will decide how long will it take?.. Viewers and spectators, us. Killing is revenge. Government taking revenge to satisfy your soul. Is your soul satisfied with the level of revenge? We are scared executionists. How differently could you revenge if 7 kids were killed by a car accident or by a serial killer? You execute the serial killer, because he is responsible -you think so, because he is the executioner. Who is responsible in the accident? "Too complicated, there are many factors plays role." So compensation mechanism spends some money and buy the moral and justice. Everyone is satisfied, -partly.
How can we accept a social relation of any human brain is simpler than a car accident? Is it a scientificly proven statistical result? It is an immense claim. Because it requires the knowledge of both human brain and accident reasons to compare their complexity. So our law and justice depends on revenge. We can neither stop accident ratios nor the born of new generation of serial killers, do we?
Why did we stand on our feet millions of years ago, why did we invent things that makes us more distinct and unique in nature of existence? We should be and can be wiser than revenge seekers.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

A right is nothing more than a legally recognised and protected interest.

Thus, when somebody says "You don't have the right to execute people" it means that the law recognises that people have an interest in not being executed and will prevent people (in general) from executing others as a result.

The point is, we decide what rights we have.

Correct.

Rights are not innate; they don't exist objectively.

Yes they do. If everybody agrees to them, then it would be nonsense for somebody to argue that they do not exist.

As for the death penalty, of course we have the right to execute people! If we recognize the government as a legitimate organization, then everything else falls into place...we have the right to execute "criminals" because the government, which is supposedly us, says so.

It is, of course, possible that national governments may have to answer to external definitions of human rights.

 

[iceaura]

If it's not self-limited, it isn't justice.

Justice in the law is fidelity to declared rules. You have to have declared rules, and they have to be consistent (or fidelity would be impossible).

As far as "we" having a right to execute people - who is that, exactly?

 

[swarm]

That we could change them if we want to.

Not enough of the right people want to.

So let's not have them burdening us. Let's change them so that they allow us to do what we want, which is execute criminals.

That's just what you want. Its not what we want.

 

[swarm]

A right is nothing more than a legally recognised and protected interest.

I would say that is just a formal recognition that there are certain fundimental aspects of life which a significant number of people are willing to fight for rather than have unduly abridged.

While exactly what those are tends to be bound up in tradition and culture, there seem to be some which are fundimental enough that even the sheeple will eventually revolt.

Oddly enough greed seems more dear than life, limb, family and religion.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:

A right is nothing more than a legally recognised and protected interest.

Absolutely, and they can be changed.

Thus, when somebody says "You don't have the right to execute people" it means that the law recognises that people have an interest in not being executed and will prevent people (in general) from executing others as a result.

Not true, obviously, since, for instance, here in Texas we do have and use quite frequently the death penalty.

Therefore, as I said, it is simply a matter of perspective. Here, obviously then, our law recognizes that people have an interest in executing criminals and will allow it.

Therefore my point was, if you do want the death penalty then nothing is stopping you. Just change the law.

Yes they do. If everybody agrees to them, then it would be nonsense for somebody to argue that they do not exist.

Not objectively, which was what I was saying.

It is, of course, possible that national governments may have to answer to external definitions of human rights.

Such as? The UN Declaration of Human rights?

What if the national gov't doesn't recognize it? Then it is powerless, unfortunately.

As far as "we" having a right to execute people - who is that, exactly?

"Society"

Not enough of the right people want to.

Perhaps, depending on where you live.

That's just what you want. Its not what we want.

That's what many people want; and many people are against it.

However, then let's argue on a "I don't want it/I want it" basis, not a "you can't do it" basis.

Because sure we can.

 

[wise acre]

This is basically about the people who will say things like "wait, you don't have the right to execute people" or "we don't have the right to decide if someone lives or dies"

We don't. And we do. The point is, we decide what rights we have. From a legal standpoint, why burden yourself? Of course we have the right to decide of someone lives or dies, because we give ourself that right.


Rights are not innate; they don't exist objectively. They are entirely what we make them. And the world is just a rough world like that.

As for the death penalty, of course we have the right to execute people! If we recognize the government as a legitimate organization, then everything else falls into place...we have the right to execute "criminals" because the government, which is supposedly us, says so.

There we go.

So we could have the right to think you are wrong about this. We could make this right, as you have pointed out. A culture could even decide to execute you for your ideas. They could make that right for themselves also. Right?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It is, of course, possible that national governments may have to answer to external definitions of human rights.

I read that the Belgian government was planning to issue a warrant for Bush for his war crimes. Eventually they were persuaded to drop it since going after a sitting President could be bad for everything from exports to tourism, and could even precipitate a shootout between national police and Secret Service agents on an airfield.

But now that he's out of office I notice that a judge in Spain plans to go after several of his underlings. It won't be long before the European countries which assume international jurisdiction over human rights abuses come gunning for Bush. He won't be able to leave American soil.